It applies to both man and woman, how is it anti woman then?It's banning casual clothes predominantly worn by women on a regular basis, especially in areas that are warm/hot.
It applies to both man and woman, how is it anti woman then?It's banning casual clothes predominantly worn by women on a regular basis, especially in areas that are warm/hot.
I agree with you fully there, as long as you state what you are doing and a have a warning message before entering the channel(as it works now when you specify 18+) it should be fine. To be honest that example should not even be in the 18+ category but i understand what they are trying to do.A woman showing her bare shoulders being restricted to Adults Only category.
Again, women are the ones who predominantly wear clothes that have bare shoulders.
Let me extrapolate out to a more extreme example so you can see the line of logic:
How is banning gay marriage anti-gay when gay people can still marry those of the opposite gender and straight people still can't marry those of the same gender?
I don't see how this is sexist. If you're creating a ruleset to stop a specific type of stream from being in the child friendly part of your website, and women are the vast majority of people running that specific type of stream then of course the ruleset is going to be focused on women.
Both sexes don't wear the same kind of clothes. Because of body differences, there is difference in clothes.
Because there's other platforms for that.
Also, an 18+ stream is likely 18+ for other reasons besides what the streamer is wearing. It's likely 18+ for explicit language or the game they're playing. Maybe if they're drinking alcohol too? I'm not sure.
Buying Ninja speaks volumes about the audience Microsoft wants for Mixer.
I better get all the children and families off the beach, because those children clearly may as well be in a strip club.
While I agree with "their service, their rules", they are inviting customers to use their service, and therefore the customers are allowed to voice their opinion about said service.Seems fair enough
Also: that's Microsoft's place and its rules. Could you imagine going in somebody´s house uninvited and yell: wow your rules are shit
Well it's fine untill you find out some teenage kids are fapping to your content. I mean yea it's weird no matter the age but microsoft is restricting it to 18+But 18+ should just be 18+. The whole boobies are dangerous line of thinking seems...weird.
This is a huge strawman though. The question isn't if dressing in a certain way is inherently sexual, it's if people can and will use dressing in a certain way in a sexual manner.
Seems fair enough
Also: that's Microsoft's place and its rules. Could you imagine going in somebody´s house uninvited and yell: wow your rules are shit
Yeah.... Was gonna post something similar to this. Twitch even has policies that they straight up just arbitrarily enforce based on how much their staff likes that particular streamer.
I'll never understand how Amouranth is still a thing.
I strongly suspect that most people who find these rules very objectionable just haven't used twitch or aren't very familiar with twitch. There's a whole subsection of channels on that site whose main purpose is titillation/virtual girlfriend experience type stuff, where clothes and camera angles are very carefully designed to appeal to a male audience and extract money from them.
I am not a judgemental person, and I don't think this is inherently wrong. I also have chosen not to post examples of this because I'm not trying to play a part in shaming anyone -- But you have to understand that MS's rules were written in response to this reality rather than to reflect a general anti-woman worldview. They don't have to host sex channels if they don't want to. They can run the type of business they want to run.
I'm done repeating myself though so I'll have to move on from this topic now :)
Well it's fine untill you find out some teenage kids are fapping to your content. I mean yea it's weird no matter the age but microsoft is restricting it to 18+
While I agree with "their service, their rules", they are inviting customers to use their service, and therefore the customers are allowed to voice their opinion about said service.
Though yelling of course isn't nice :)
This is the first time I'm hearing that Mixer doesn't want people to use its service.
What a weird business plan.
I don't see how this is sexist- you wanna stream to kids, where a t-shirt.
So... they don't want viewers to view their service?Yea I'm mostly talking about viewers, aka us right now. I think streamers have some right to discuss, even if there are other platforms out there if they aren't happy
Yeah but that's not really the point. It appears that Mixer just wants be a stricter version of Twitch in an attempt to maintain a certain amount of quality to their content and community. Whereas Twitch is basically a bloody free for all when it comes to the rules and the way they are enforced. And that mentality is reflected in the behavior of its community. Mixer seems to want to avoid that.Okay, all other topics of discussion aside, it's hilarious to think that kids can't watch the 18+ streams whenever they want if they want to see *gasp* bare shoulders.
Okay, all other topics of discussion aside, it's hilarious to think that kids can't watch the 18+ streams whenever they want if they want to see *gasp* bare shoulders.
The thing is, unless you believe that these rules aren't sexist, then if these rules are targeting sexual streamers then it means that a company is doing something sexist so they can profit.Conceptually, I feel you can show bare shoulders or show cleavage (or if you're a dude, go shirtless) in a family friendly stream and it's obviously not going to harm anyone who sees it. There's nothing inherently wrong or harmful about a woman or man's body. Revealing attire doesn't necessarily determine the tone of a stream, but if the goal of the platform holder is to avoid having camgirl (or camboy, hypothetically) type channels on their service the way twitch does, the only way to actually stop this is to have a very specific dress code. This is less about a worldview and more about what culture they want their service to have.
I don't find the rules ridiculous, but I do think they're a bit silly. I'm pretty sure kids can handle a cleavage??? Also, if your stream is 18+ you should be able to stream topless if you want IMO. But maybe there are some advertising concerns I'm not aware of regarding these points. Maybe rules have to be a bit silly regarding these issues, IDK. Still fair to point out their silliness.Seems fair enough
Also: that's Microsoft's place and its rules. Could you imagine going in somebody´s house uninvited and yell: wow your rules are shit
Kids can handle a little cleavage. The problem is, if the rules aren't specific enough, then some streamers will push the limits on order to push sexualized content on minors. This is well documented.I don't find the rules ridiculous, but I do think they're a bit silly. I'm pretty sure kids can handle a cleavage??? Also, if your stream is 18+ you should be able to stream topless if you want IMO. But maybe there are some advertising concerns I'm not aware of regarding these points. Maybe rules have to be a bit silly regarding these issues, IDK. Still fair to point out their silliness.
But, about the last part of that post - This is all kinds of corporate apologia. It's not their house - It's a public site. A public site they make money from.
The thing is, unless you believe that these rules aren't sexist, then if these rules are targeting sexual streamers then it means that a company is doing something sexist so they can profit.
So many people are making the argument that this is only to target camgirl type streamers as if that would justify the sexist nature of the rules. Now if you don't believe the rules are sexist that's fine, but surely you should be using whatever reasons you think that as your argument rather than this weird "this is justified if it gets rid of the e-thots" stuff?
I just can't help but think that that specific angle has this undercurrent of sexism itself.
the only way to actually stop this is to have a very specific dress code.
Sickle Cell Anemia disproportionately affects men of African descent. Doesn't make the disease racist.
I'm suggesting that implementing sexist rules in order to get rid of something you don't like is sexist.You're suggesting it's inherently wrong to not want camgirl (or camboy, in theory, but if we look at twitch it's primarily girls that are doing this)-flavored content on your service? I don't get follow, sorry, but if that's the case I don't agree.
As an aside, I think the general hate of camgirls is pretty overblown and sometimes downright nasty.
Companies that want to stay "clean" of them are likely not doing it out of morality (pfft, come on, they just want to maximize profit) but because men love to make a huge fuss over them.
But why do all women constantly have to be blamed and punished for those streams when it's men donating and creating the demand? These rules are to such an extreme that many small streamers would have to change outfits just to stream and also creates a dynamic where certain clothing is being labelled as "adult" by the hosting platform and may cause presumptions among the audience based on the clothes the streamer is wearing.All I see is a big middle finger for the populars by using boobs and collecting donate.
and also creates a dynamic where certain clothing is being labelled as "adult" by the hosting platform and may cause presumptions among the audience based on the clothes the streamer is wearing.
You never have been fat.Feel like I'm taking crazy pills, men don't have a bust line and don't have cleavage.
The rules are targeting women. They factually are. Am I missing something?
Men just hate it when women are able to benefit from anything sex related.But why do all women constantly have to be blamed and punished for those streams when it's men donating and creating the demand? These rules are to such an extreme that many small streamers would have to change outfits just to stream and also creates a dynamic where certain clothing is being labelled as "adult" by the hosting platform and may cause presumptions among the audience based on the clothes the streamer is wearing.
Don't know how you equate restrictions on specific viewers as all people? There's plenty of viewers who are there for the personality of streamers and not titillation, MS want to foster an environment for them. Nothing weird about that, and tbh it's a relief to know that it's tightly moderated.This is the first time I'm hearing that Mixer doesn't want people to use its service.
What a weird business plan.
I guess jealousy plays a big part there, a lot of people assume if a girl is pretty that she has to be dumb as well and so they think they profit from that which in turn they think it not fair.But why do all women constantly have to be blamed and punished for those streams when it's men donating and creating the demand? These rules are to such an extreme that many small streamers would have to change outfits just to stream and also creates a dynamic where certain clothing is being labelled as "adult" by the hosting platform and may cause presumptions among the audience based on the clothes the streamer is wearing.
Don't know how you equate restrictions on specific viewers as all people? There's plenty of viewers who are there for the personality of streamers and not titillation, MS want to foster an environment for them. Nothing weird about that, and tbh it's a relief to know that it's tightly moderated.
Oh come on. If social norms were bred through your genes, it wouldn't change the fact that you have to take them into account. The point was generalized - just because something is disproportionate does not automatically mean it is discriminatory.If sickle cell anemia was developed and spread by a corporation, it would be pretty goddamn racist. It would literally be attempted genocide. Bad analogy.
Feel like I'm taking crazy pills, men don't have a bust line and don't have cleavage.
The rules are targeting women. They factually are. Am I missing something?